Andy Flower vs Alan Knott

[kyear2]

this. Jurel looked better than any batting prospect we had too.

Is it even deniable that he's just a natural with the gloves and clearly more suited to be the keeper than Pant?

Not to add that as you said, he looks really good with the bat.

As good a prospect as Jaiswal imho and should be a definite for the team.

 

[capt_Luffy]

There were about 4 posts in that thread about his keeping. All but one said he wasn't as good as Gilchrist, and clearly so.
Most of the discussion that was even about him was as usual, around his batting... Your conclusion that he wasn't that bad as a gloveman is purely based on your desire to come to it. He wants a top class keeper, he wasn't even a really good one like Gilly. Anything below that and you're not in this conversation.

And as Subz always points out, there's always a softening on players as they approach retirement. Taking over used example of Kallis, he was seen to be a better all rounder after his career than he was seen to be during, and yes there's plenty of posts showing that.

Your flippant dismissal of Knott as an all time great is a bit disrespectful but consistent with your views that undervalue specialists who aren't batsmen, and totally devalue catching and subsequently, great wicket-keeping.

Was England right to drop Russell to give Alec the gloves? Not nearly imo. Alec was better off as an opener and Jack the much better keeper.

Even in our discussions about Sangakkara being the keeper in an ATG Asia side, he's there purely out of necessity because there's no genuine world class top 6 all rounder available. With Sanga as the keeper you're getting less batting output from him, and a slightly lesser keeper than say Engineer or Prasanna J.
Even in my B ATG team, having a Knott isn't a problem as I have Imran covering him at 7 and he fits seamlessly in at 8.

Even at 7 in any team, a batting average of 32 isn't a liability and having one of the greatest glove men ever is a plus. And yes, I do acknowledge that the wicketkeeper position has become an all rounder position, doesn't mean it has to skew that far in the favor of the batting side.

But thankfully, even with low numbers, this poll is quite definitive, as have most of the polls regarding McGrath being a shoo in for an AT XI despite not being able to bat.

What is equally off to me is that you don't consider a bowler or keeper of they can't produce with the bat to your standards, but have no issue with Sachin over Kallis even when there's no argument that Kallis would being so much more to a team than Sachin ever could with his catching and bowling which are equally essential to a team make up, and potentially more so.

But to sum up, I have two wicket keeper batsmen as ATGs and Knott is definitely one of them.

Okay, much to unwrap. Not doing ATG XIs here. There were 5 people talking about his keeping and given their were 2 calling him better, 3 Gilchrist better and only 1 significantly. As I would imagine, had he really been as bad as some people are saying (like Akmal level), I would imagine the keeping pushback would had been greater.

I believe it was Peterhrt and Grecian who pointed out Russell's keeping against spin to be overrated, and the main loss was Stewart's batting. In this case, Flower literally averages 53 while keeping for 55 matches. Don't think can get much higher than that.

And I never called Knott not an ATG. But I don't think he was really much superior to Waite, Watling, Dhoni or de Kock overall; or Saha, Jayawardene, etc than as a keeper. 70s English players are like the prime stuff for romanticization. Still think he was better than all I mentioned, just not in any measure to impact a match much. And definitely don't think he will impact most matches as much as Flower will do.

 

[Coronis]

Okay, much to unwrap. Not doing ATG XIs here. There were 5 people talking about his keeping and given their were 2 calling him better, 3 Gilchrist better and only 1 significantly. As I would imagine, had he really been as bad as some people are saying (like Akmal level), I would imagine the keeping pushback would had been greater.

I believe it was Peterhrt and Grecian who pointed out Russell's keeping against spin to be overrated, and the main loss was Stewart's batting. In this case, Flower literally averages 53 while keeping for 55 matches. Don't think can get much higher than that.

And I never called Knott not an ATG. But I don't think he was really much superior to Waite, Watling, Dhoni or de Kock overall; or Saha, Jayawardene, etc than as a keeper. 70s English players are like the prime stuff for romanticization. Still think he was better than all I mentioned, just not in any measure to impact a match much. And definitely don't think he will impact most matches as much as Flower will do.

iirc Boycott gets romanticised a lot.

 

[capt_Luffy]

iirc Boycott gets romanticised a lot.

Botham does the most.

 

[kyear2]

Okay, much to unwrap. Not doing ATG XIs here. There were 5 people talking about his keeping and given their were 2 calling him better, 3 Gilchrist better and only 1 significantly. As I would imagine, had he really been as bad as some people are saying (like Akmal level), I would imagine the keeping pushback would had been greater.

I believe it was Peterhrt and Grecian who pointed out Russell's keeping against spin to be overrated, and the main loss was Stewart's batting. In this case, Flower literally averages 53 while keeping for 55 matches. Don't think can get much higher than that.

And I never called Knott not an ATG. But I don't think he was really much superior to Waite, Watling, Dhoni or de Kock overall; or Saha, Jayawardene, etc than as a keeper. 70s English players are like the prime stuff for romanticization. Still think he was better than all I mentioned, just not in any measure to impact a match much. And definitely don't think he will impact most matches as much as Flower will do.

We're only using ATG XI's to get everyone on a even plane to illustrate my point. And said points still stand.

That aside, you say that if he was Akmal bad, which I never said he was, that there would be pushback. Again, if he was as good as you choose to believe, he would be in discussions that he's just not.

With regards to Russell and Stewart, there's no comparison with regards to their globe work, and everyone knew it was the wrong decision, but England had their fetish as you do, and it hurt the team.
Yes Flower averaged over 50, but one thing that you seem to miss, is that to be a great keeper batsman, you have to be a great keeper. And that's one thing no one will ever accuse Flower of being. It's the primary job, and if they had anyone earlier to replace him, they would have.

With regards to the last bit, Dhoni wasn't close to the keeper Knott was, so to say the value is similar is a bit disqualifying tbh.

Have you ever watched Underwood bowl? Imagine that on an uncovered pitch and tell me Flower could have done it.

Let's not even go so far, an attack with Warne, Murali and Marshall, or consistently standing up to McGrath. Knott has that covered, Gilchrist proved he could, as he actually did.

Do you think Flower could.

If the answer is no, then what is this discussion even about? Think you've conveniently forgotten what their primary role is.

Knott in my mind is easily an ATG, Flower isn't. He's a batting great, but that's as far as I go.

Don't think you even addressed the Tendulkar / Kallis point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

We're only using ATG XI's to get everyone on a even plane to illustrate my point. And said points still stand.

That aside, you say that if he was Akmal bad, which I never said he was, that there would be pushback. Again, if he was as good as you choose to believe, he would be in discussions that he's just not.

With regards to Russell and Stewart, there's no comparison with regards to their globe work, and everyone knew it was the wrong decision, but England had their fetish as you do, and it hurt the team.
Yes Flower averaged over 50, but one thing that you seem to miss, is that to be a great keeper batsman, you have to be a great keeper. And that's one thing no one will ever accuse Flower of being. It's the primary job, and if they had anyone earlier to replace him, they would have.

With regards to the last bit, Dhoni wasn't close to the keeper Knott was, so to say the value is similar is a bit disqualifying tbh.

Have you ever watched Underwood bowl? Imagine that on an uncovered pitch and tell me Flower could have done it.

Let's not even go so far, an attack with Warne, Murali and Marshall, or consistently standing up to McGrath. Knott has that covered, Gilchrist proved he could, as he actually did.

Do you think Flower could.

If the answer is no, then what is this discussion even about? Think you've conveniently forgotten what their primary role is.

Knott in my mind is easily an ATG, Flower isn't. He's a batting great, but that's as far as I go.

Don't think you even addressed the Tendulkar / Kallis point.

I think keeping to bad bowlers is tougher than keeping to good ones. Strang was a very estranged bowler, could turn big. Kinda same with the likes of Olonga or Mbangwa. And frankly, I just care for output. Don't think Knott's output can surpass Flower in most situations, so pretty clear there for me.

Re Tendulkar/Kallis, I simply think Sachin's overall output in more instances will simply be greater. It's definitely very close between them and I really can't complaint if someone prefers Kallis, I would take him over any pure batsman not named Don, Sachin and Hobbs.

 

[kyear2]

I think keeping to bad bowlers is tougher than keeping to good ones. Strang was a very estranged bowler, could turn big. Kinda same with the likes of Olonga or Mbangwa. And frankly, I just care for output. Don't think Knott's output can surpass Flower in most situations, so pretty clear there for me.

Re Tendulkar/Kallis, I simply think Sachin's overall output in more instances will simply be greater. It's definitely very close between them and I really can't complaint if someone prefers Kallis, I would take him over any pure batsman not named Don, Sachin and Hobbs.

So basically don't care of he could keep to Murali or Warne, or extreme pace, or even stand up to medium, all down to how much runs he scores.

Think that's the end of the argument tbh. Think at some point someone one told you nothing matters besides how much runs you score down the order, and it apparently stuck.

There's not a single statistical basis for your Sachin argument. Sachin is better than Kallis because he proved himself more against better bowlers (early in career) and he was a more fluent scorer. Similar as to why I rate McGrath easily over Hadlee and especially Imran, did better in worse conditions, his style of bowling and extra bounce, his knack for getting key batsmen out etc etc... it's the intangibles.

But if their batting jumps them over McGrath, how does the bowling and ATG catching for Kallis doesn't do the same for him.

By your accumulative way of rating players the only batsman who's worth can exceed his complete package is the Don, the rest is just arbitrarily choosing favorites, the only things separating Sachin from Viv is longevity and that has nothing to do with quality. There's no consistency to how you do this. Kallis's production was right there with Sachin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So basically don't care of he could keep to Murali or Warne, or extreme pace, or even stand up to medium, all down to how much runs he scores.

Think that's the end of the argument tbh. Think at some point someone one told you nothing matters besides how much runs you score down the order, and it apparently stuck.

There's not a single statistical basis for your Sachin argument. Sachin is better than Kallis because he proved himself more against better bowlers (early in career) and he was a more fluent scorer. Similar as to why I rate McGrath easily over Hadlee and especially Imran, did better in worse conditions, his style of bowling and extra bounce, his knack for getting key batsmen out etc etc... it's the intangibles.

But if their batting jumps them over McGrath, how does the bowling and ATG catching for Kallis doesn't do the same for him.

By your accumulative way of rating players the only batsman who's worth can exceed his complete package is the Don, the rest is just arbitrarily choosing favorites, the only things separating Sachin from Viv is longevity and that has nothing to do with quality. There's no consistency to how you do this. Kallis's production was right there with Sachin.

Sachin was himself a very safe catcher, so Kallis not getting much catching points. Sachin gets plenty of points for longevity. There's more between Sachin and Viv than longevity, but that's another debate. Also think most people rate McGrath lower than Imran and Hadlee, but probably more/around equal for Sachin and Kallis.

Are you really comparing batting of Flower and Knott?? Pretty pointless really. Flower stood up to medium pacers (see the stumping clip) and kept to pretty terrible fast bowlers and big turners. It's a rough job. Don't really think he would be unserviceable.

 

[kyear2]

Sachin was himself a very safe catcher, so Kallis not getting much catching points. Sachin gets plenty of points for longevity. There's more between Sachin and Viv than longevity, but that's another debate. Also think most people rate McGrath lower than Imran and Hadlee, but probably more/around equal for Sachin and Kallis.

Are you really comparing batting of Flower and Knott?? Pretty pointless really. Flower stood up to medium pacers (see the stumping clip) and kept to pretty terrible fast bowlers and big turners. It's a rough job. Don't really think he would be unserviceable.

Yeah the two highlighted statements are just beyond the pale and not even worth continuing the discussion if that's the bullshit you're making up.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah the two highlighted statements are just beyond the pale and not even worth continuing the discussion if that's the bullshit you're making up.

WTF you meant by Bullshit I am making up?? I am not some Great Slip catching milker and Tendulkar was a very safe catcher; so can't see any reason to give Kallis much there.

Re the second point, you have to be really delusional there. McGrath gets rated behind Imran and Hadlee consistently here.

Who was better: Hadlee or McGrath?

Keep this discussion to tests only, please. :) The bare stats: Hadlee: Matches: 86 (1973-1990) Wickets: 431 (5.01 wickets per test) Average: 22.29 S/R: 50.8 5WI: 36 (5 wicket bag in 41% of matches played) 10WM: 9 McGrath Matches: 124 (1993-2007) Wickets: 563 (4.54 wickets per test) Average...

www.cricketweb.net

Imran Vs McGrath

Who is the better cricketer?

www.cricketweb.net

CW's 100 Greatest Cricketers Poll

Maybe we should put up the final top 100 in a new thread and allow for debates. Thanks @capt_Luffy for running this. I didn't vote after first 3 rounds but followed this thread closely. Great effort. I think this is the first time we have collectively made a top 100 list at CW like this.

www.cricketweb.net

 

[kyear2]

WTF you meant by Bullshit I am making up?? I am not some Great Slip catching milker and Tendulkar was a very safe catcher; so can't see any reason to give Kallis much there.

Re the second point, you have to be really delusional there. McGrath gets rated behind Imran and Hadlee consistently here.

Who was better: Hadlee or McGrath?

Keep this discussion to tests only, please. :) The bare stats: Hadlee: Matches: 86 (1973-1990) Wickets: 431 (5.01 wickets per test) Average: 22.29 S/R: 50.8 5WI: 36 (5 wicket bag in 41% of matches played) 10WM: 9 McGrath Matches: 124 (1993-2007) Wickets: 563 (4.54 wickets per test) Average...

www.cricketweb.net

Imran Vs McGrath

Who is the better cricketer?

www.cricketweb.net

CW's 100 Greatest Cricketers Poll

Maybe we should put up the final top 100 in a new thread and allow for debates. Thanks @capt_Luffy for running this. I didn't vote after first 3 rounds but followed this thread closely. Great effort. I think this is the first time we have collectively made a top 100 list at CW like this.

www.cricketweb.net

To compare one of the greatest ever in the slip cordon to Tendulkar is like comparing Imran to Warne as batsmen. They aren't remotely comparable. Anyone who's ever watched any of them play knows this, you just pretend not to, or again, just stats. Then gain, you probably haven't.

I'm speaking to McGrath vs Imran as bowlers. McGrath is as clearly ahead of Imran as a bowler as Sachin is ahead of Kallis as a batsman.
If Imran's batting places him ahead of McGrath as cricketers, no way Kallis's catching and bowling doesn't place him ahead of Tendulkar.

Forget rating as cricketers, if Imran's batting brings more value to a team to McGrath, then no way Kallis as your 4th or 5th bowler and ATG at the pivotal 2nd slip position doesn't bring more value to a team as well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

To compare one of the greatest ever in the slip cordon to Tendulkar is like comparing Imran to Warne as batsmen. They aren't remotely comparable. Anyone who's ever watched any of them play knows this, you just pretend not to, or again, just stats. Then gain, you probably haven't.

I'm speaking to McGrath vs Imran as bowlers. McGrath is as clearly ahead of Imran as a bowler as Sachin is ahead of Kallis as a batsman.
If Imran's batting places him ahead of McGrath as cricketers, no way Kallis's catching and bowling doesn't place him ahead of Tendulkar.

Forget rating as cricketers, if Imran's batting brings more value to a team to McGrath, then no way Kallis as your 4th or 5th bowler and ATG at the pivotal 2nd slip position doesn't bring more value to a team as well.

I have said time and time again, Tendulkar would had grabbed around 90% of what Kallis did. Pretty enough for me.

Again, it doesn't for me. Imran was a frontline level batsman, Kallis wasn't a frontline level bowler, definitely not a 4th. Imran is also closer to McGrath than Kallis is to Tendulkar in primary. Still think Kallis vs Tendulkar is very debatable though, and would had gone for Kallis without Tendulkar's longevity.

So like overall, McGrath and Imran are closer in primary, I rate Imran's batting to be more valuable than Kallis' bowling and not fawning over slip fielding. Can't see how come to the conclusion that my POV is unreasonable, when it literally is the most common one here.

 

[ma1978]

To compare one of the greatest ever in the slip cordon to Tendulkar is like comparing Imran to Warne as batsmen. They aren't remotely comparable. Anyone who's ever watched any of them play knows this, you just pretend not to, or again, just stats. Then gain, you probably haven't.

I'm speaking to McGrath vs Imran as bowlers. McGrath is as clearly ahead of Imran as a bowler as Sachin is ahead of Kallis as a batsman.
If Imran's batting places him ahead of McGrath as cricketers, no way Kallis's catching and bowling doesn't place him ahead of Tendulkar.

Forget rating as cricketers, if Imran's batting brings more value to a team to McGrath, then no way Kallis as your 4th or 5th bowler and ATG at the pivotal 2nd slip position doesn't bring more value to a team as well.

batting. Matters a lot more than fielding

The difference between a good and average fielder doesn’t change the outcome of games

 

[Thala_0710]

So basically don't care of he could keep to Murali or Warne, or extreme pace, or even stand up to medium, all down to how much runs he scores.

Think that's the end of the argument tbh. Think at some point someone one told you nothing matters besides how much runs you score down the order, and it apparently stuck.

There's not a single statistical basis for your Sachin argument. Sachin is better than Kallis because he proved himself more against better bowlers (early in career) and he was a more fluent scorer. Similar as to why I rate McGrath easily over Hadlee and especially Imran, did better in worse conditions, his style of bowling and extra bounce, his knack for getting key batsmen out etc etc... it's the intangibles.

But if their batting jumps them over McGrath, how does the bowling and ATG catching for Kallis doesn't do the same for him.

By your accumulative way of rating players the only batsman who's worth can exceed his complete package is the Don, the rest is just arbitrarily choosing favorites, the only things separating Sachin from Viv is longevity and that has nothing to do with quality. There's no consistency to how you do this. Kallis's production was right there with Sachin.

I disagree here. Mcgraths bowling is definitely better than Hadlee and Imran but the gap is smaller than Sachin vs Kallis in batting. Mcgrath and Hadlee is a very small gap in bowling and I have them as the 2nd and 3rd greatest bowlers of all time. Hence Hadlee's batting wins it as an overall cricketer. With Imran the gap is slightly bigger in bowling but he is still top 10 for me. And he is a decent frontline batsman too (much better with the bat than Kallis is with the ball), hence wins over McGrath for me as well.
As for Sachin vs Kallis it is the closest for me out of the three, but the gap imo is bigger in batting than you're making it out be. Sachin would be my greatest batsman of all time if not for a freak named Bradman. Kallis is an ATG batsman but not top 10 all the and a tier below Tendulkar. A very good fifth and at times 4th bowling choice added with great catching brings it close but isn't enough for me. But if anyone has Kallis over Tendulkar, I wouldn't have much issues.

 

[kyear2]

I have said time and time again, Tendulkar would had grabbed around 90% of what Kallis did. Pretty enough for me.

Again, it doesn't for me. Imran was a frontline level batsman, Kallis wasn't a frontline level bowler, definitely not a 4th. Imran is also closer to McGrath than Kallis is to Tendulkar in primary. Still think Kallis vs Tendulkar is very debatable though, and would had gone for Kallis without Tendulkar's longevity.

So like overall, McGrath and Imran are closer in primary, I rate Imran's batting to be more valuable than Kallis' bowling and not fawning over slip fielding. Can't see how come to the conclusion that my POV is unreasonable, when it literally is the most common one here.

When I see you say **** like this I'm convinced you never watched any of these guys play. No he wouldn't have. Not close, Kallis was one of the top 10 to have done it. That take is asinine.

Imran wasn't a front line batsman, he was a borderline test level batsman. Logie wasn't a test standard batsman, he and Hooper were below average test batsmen. Kallis was often the 4th bowler and 3rd seamer for SA. If Imran was front line, so was he.

Kallis and Sachin played in the same era and came out with the same stats. Kallis also had insane longevity.

Your POV is inconsistent and based on a style of cricket and priorities that's never existed.

You believe that catching on no level has matters, slip nor wicket-keeping, strange thinking that's where most of dismissals are taken. Strange when everyone knows how important their cordons were to the success of Davidson, Lillee, Hadlee, the Quartet, Marshall, McGrath, Donald, Steyn etc..., that guys like Simpson made his team initially as a slip, Hooper kept his place because of it etc etc.

And no it's not the popular one here. Knott is easily defeating Flower and the one poll that was done to prove I was wrong about the bowling thing.



You saying I'm wrong and the results of actual polls are different things all together.

Also

 

[kyear2]

batting. Matters a lot more than fielding

The difference between a good and average fielder doesn’t change the outcome of games

As the primary skills, obviously, there's no disputing that, but dropped catches have cost many a game, to argue this doesn't vibe with reality.

Having a great cordon is just as important as having a decent top of a tail or having decent bowling depth. You need it all to win.

But due to the nature of the skill sets involved, you can rely more on a great cordon than you can on a tail, as was illustrated in this last test.

 

[kyear2]

I disagree here. Mcgraths bowling is definitely better than Hadlee and Imran but the gap is smaller than Sachin vs Kallis in batting. Mcgrath and Hadlee is a very small gap in bowling and I have them as the 2nd and 3rd greatest bowlers of all time. Hence Hadlee's batting wins it as an overall cricketer. With Imran the gap is slightly bigger in bowling but he is still top 10 for me. And he is a decent frontline batsman too (much better with the bat than Kallis is with the ball), hence wins over McGrath for me as well.
As for Sachin vs Kallis it is the closest for me out of the three, but the gap imo is bigger in batting than you're making it out be. Sachin would be my greatest batsman of all time if not for a freak named Bradman. Kallis is an ATG batsman but not top 10 all the and a tier below Tendulkar. A very good fifth and at times 4th bowling choice added with great catching brings it close but isn't enough for me. But if anyone has Kallis over Tendulkar, I wouldn't have much issues.

I also have McGrath and Hadlee 2 and 3, Imran 8th so also top 10.

I also have Sachin in my top 3 batsman and Kallis in that 9 to 13 range where they are all relatively close. But let's not pretend that Kallis didn't play in the same era and basically had the same numbers. It was the little things that made the difference, but there also no dispute that if you're looking at it from an accumulative perspective, Kallis beings more to any team. The same batting production, a 4th bowler and an almost peerless 2nd slip.

And while Kallis is a tier below Sachin for us both, I also have Imran a tier below the top 3 guys as well.

McGrath adapts to more conditions and played on worst pitches than Imran did, not to add Imran's less than stellar away record. McGrath and Marshall is just the perfect opening partnership who also perfectly compliments each other. If you want him as the 3rd guy, he's more than eligible, but the same way Sachin is the better batsman and deserves to be selected based on that alone, because that was his primary job, McGrath is the better bowler and deserves the same selection.

 

[kyear2]

@Thala_0710 not to get too far off topic but basically.

Bradman | Tendulkar | Sobers | Richards | Hobbs
Lara | Smith | Hutton

Gavaskar | Chappell | Hammond | Ponting | Kallis


Marshall | McGrath | Hadlee
Steyn | Warne | Muralitharan | Ambrose

Imran | Lillee | Donald | Wasim | Garner

 

[Victor Ian]

there is more to a kepper than just catches. letting through byes also hurts the bowlers, not so much in runs but in not being able to bowl certain areas because of the risk of byes. good keepers can stand closer to the stumps for slow and medium pace and stop batsmen walking out of the ground. good keepers can also allow slips to cover more arc as they dont need 1st to be so close. And good keepers put doubt in a batsmans mind when he thinks 'if he nicks it, he's certainly out' as opposed to maybe out.

each drop, on average is worth the average of the batsman dropped. add to that runs saved through less byes and extra pressure. you have to be bradman to make up for all of that.

 

[honestbharani]

Almost everyone on the Zimbabwe Cricket Forum hating his keeping and wishing they just picked a specialist gloveman to bat 8 or 9 from the start is as good evidence as any. They already had a good lower order with good bowling all rounders, and they often ended up picking a substandard specialist bat at 6 or 7 anyway.

The fans know.

Flower vs Knott as overall cricketers is close. If whoever you pick is going to be forced to keep then it's really not.

No it means they felt Flower's workload was too much coz of batting 4 or 5 and keeping. I dont recall it ever being like he was kakmal behind the stumps. He was fine. Not outstanding but not so bad that it becomes a cost.